1 CGHC010259342026 2026:CGHC:35650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 896 of 2026 Neha Sahu D/o Ashok K. Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Iind Floor, B.G. -2/g- 5, Rajaswa Colony, Dingapur, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner. versus Mr. Devendra Singh Bharadwaj Controller, Legal Metrological Department, Indravati, Bhawan, Block 2, 3rd Floor,new Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. T. K. Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 12 read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India against the respondent for non-compliance of the order dated 11.05.2026 passed by this Court in WPS No. 3974/2026 (Neha Sahu v. State of C.G. and others). 2. At the outset, counsel for the respondent submits that he has filed a reply to the contempt petition. Referring to his reply, he submits that in compliance Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.08.13 10:31:01 +0530 2 with the order under contempt dated 11.05.2026, the transfer/posting order from Korba to Mungeli in respect of the petitioner has been recalled vide order (Annexure R/2) dated 19.05.2026. As such, the impugned order has been fully complied with. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the transfer/posting order has been recalled, but the petitioner has not been handed over charge of the said post, rather, it has been given additionally to one Pal Singh Dahariya, who is posted at Sakti. 4. The respondent is also present through Video Conferencing. 5. The operative part of the order dated 11.05.2026 in WPS No. 3974/2026 is to the effect that "impugned order dated 24/04/2026 passed by the respondent, to the extent it posts the petitioner at Mungeli, is quashed". 6. As stated by the respondent in his reply that the impugned order has been complied with, which is also apparent from the order dated 19.05.2026 (Annexure R/2), this Court finds that the order under contempt has been complied with. 7. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped. 8. However, if the petitioner has any grievance with respect to not being handed over charge of the post, she can take recourse to law. 9. The contempt petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay